www.fastionline.org/docs/FOLDER-it-2018-408.pdf
The Journal of Fasti Online (ISSN 1828-3179) ● Published by the Associazione Internazionale di Archeologia Classica ● Palazzo Altemps, Via Sant’Apollinare 8 – 00186 Roma ● Tel. / Fax: ++39.06.67.98.798 ● http://www.aiac.org; http://www.fastionline.org
Preliminary Report on the 2015 Field Season of the American Excavations at Morgantina: Contrada Agnese Project (CAP)
Alex Walthall - Randall Souza - Jared Benton - Elizabeth Wueste - Andrew Tharler
In its third season, the Contrada Agnese Project (CAP) continued archaeological investigations in the remains of a building, located near the western margins of the ancient urban center of Morgantina. In 2015, excavations opened a larger portion of the so-called Southeast Building, extending from the trenches opened during the 2014 season. These investigations yielded evidence from construction trenches and sub-floor fills that now allow a preliminary dating of the building’s phases. The building appears to have had a short life, having been built and abandoned within fewer than 75 years, beginning around the middle of the third century BCE. New architectural features were revealed by the 2015 excavations, including columns composed of terracotta drums and a small oven set in the corner of a central room, indications of monumental decoration and food production, respectively. This combination of monumentality and small-scale production leads excavators to identify the building as a modest house, but further excavations will be needed to fully characterize its form and function.
Introduction
The third season of the American Excavations at Morgantina: Contrada Agnese Project (CAP) took place
between 1 June and 4 July 2015. CAP is a multiyear research and excavation project designed to investigate
developments in the Contrada Agnese, a neighborhood located at some remove from the civic center of
Morgantina, between the third and first centuries BCE. Excavations were carried out with the permission of the
Co-Directors of the American Excavations at Morgantina (AEM), Prof. Malcolm Bell III and Prof. Carla
Antonaccio, and in cooperation with Dott.ssa Laura Maniscalco, Director of the Parco Archeologico Regionale
di Morgantina, and the Soprintendenza ai Beni Culturali e Ambientali di Enna1. Alex Walthall is the project
director;
1 We would like to thank Professors Malcolm Bell III and Carla Antonaccio for giving their permission and constant encouragement
to pursue this project. Our thanks also to Dott.ssa Laura Maniscalco, Arch. Giovanna Susan, Dott. Rosario Patané, and Arch. Tino
Greco, from the Soprintendenza per i Beni Culturali e Ambientali and Parco Archeologico Regionale di Morgantina, for their
continued assistance and support. Sig. Filippo LaTora provided indispensable assistance throughout the season. We are extremely
grateful to the Comune and residents of Aidone for their generosity and hospitality. Our work was made possible by generous
financial support from the Department of Art & Archaeology at Princeton University, as well as private donors. This work would not
be possible without the many volunteers who gave their time, energy, and goodwill to the project. Thanks to Skyler Anderson
(Princeton), Nicole Berlin (Johns Hopkins), Katie Breyer (UCincinnati), Sarah Buchanan (UT Austin), Lauren Callahan (UT Austin),
Nathan Carmichael (UT Austin), Sarah Caruso (UVirginia), Paul Cochran (UT Austin), Ben Crowther (UT Austin), James Currie
(Warwick), Mary-Evelyn Farrior (Tulane), Katherine Gibbon (UT Austin), Sarah Gorman (Old Dominion), Luke Hollis (Archimedes
Web Solutions), Kiersten King (Bryn Mawr), Faith McFadden (Duquesne), Katharine Potts-Dupre Huemoeller (Princeton), Andrea
Samz-Pustol (Bryn Mawr), Savannah Schultz (UOregon), Matt Sibley (USydney), Andrew Tharler (Bryn Mawr), Jeremy Turner
(UArizona), Jessica Williams (Harvard), Anne Williams (UVirginia), Einav Zamir (UT Austin). Anne Truetzel (Princeton) supervised
work in the museum and was assisted by Mali Skotheim (Princeton). Robert Gorham (UVirginia) and Kevin Ennis (UPenn) headed
the Geospatial team. Leigh Lieberman (Princeton) was responsible for the development and maintenance of the CAP databases.
Ceramics processing and analysis was accomplished by Catherine Baker (UCincinnati) and Sabina Ion (UCincinnati). China
Shelton (ACOR) supervised the collection and analysis of paleobotanical evidence with help from Christy Schirmer (UT Austin).
Aislinn Smalling (UCL) and Raffaella Greca returned as the project’s conservators. Giancarlo Filantropi served as the project’s
draftsman. Teresa Arena (Pàropos Società Cooperativa) served as the project’s supervisor of site safety. Lastly, we would like to
A. Walthall - R. Souza - J. Benton - E. Wueste - A. Tharler ● Preliminary Report on the 2015 Field Season of the American Excavations at Morgantina:
Contrada Agnese Project (CAP)
2
www.fastionline.org/docs/FOLDER-it-2018-408.pdf
director; Randall Souza and Jared Benton served
as area supervisors; Andrew Tharler, Elizabeth
Wueste, and Steve Gavel were trench supervisors
for trenches 39, 40, and 41, respectively.
Summary of Previous Work and 2015 Objectives
Initial excavations by CAP in 2013 revealed
an urban grid adapted to the topography of the
Agnese ridge2. The 2014 excavations exposed
several identifiable rooms within the Southeast
Building, the current focus of the CAP excavations,
which occupied the northwest lot (Lot 1) of insula
13W/S143. The well-preserved deposits encoun-
tered within these northern rooms gave clear indi-
cation of the multiple phases of activity in the
Southeast Building (on which see more below).
Less clear was the exact nature of activity taking
place within the building, or what purpose it ori-
ginally served. The discovery of several large sto-
rage vessels and a zone of possible food pre-
paration lent credibility to the idea that the building
was a house, but further investigation was needed.
The 2015 excavations focused largely on
the northern rooms of the Southeast Building,
expanding the 2014 trenches with the goal of
broadening our understanding of the building’s fun-
ction and occupation history. Three trenches were
opened in 2015: Trench 39 along the west side of
the structure, Trench 40 at the northeast corner,
and Trench 41 in the south to locate the boundary
of the lot (figs. 1-2). In what follows, we offer a
preliminary narrative with phases of construction and occupation activity, along with notable objects and
materials.
In 2014, we defined six phases of activity in the Southeast building. Phase One, dated to the middle of
the third century BCE, encompassed primary construction in the building. Phase Two included construction and
elaboration that was secondary to the earliest activity, but that was also dated to the third century BCE. Phase
Three, which ran to the end of the third century BCE, consisted of use deposits and small alterations
associated with occupation. Phase Four, a period of abandonment and destruction, was dated to the turn of the
se
thank the editors of FOLD&R and the anonymous reviewers for offering their insightful comments and constructive criticism of early
drafts of this text. 2 WALTHALL et al. (2014).
3 BENTON et al. (2015); WALTHALL et al. (2016).
Fig. 1. 2015 State plan of the Southeast Building. Drawing by Giancarlo Filantropi and James Huemoeller.
Fig. 2. Aerial orthophoto of 2015 CAP trenches taken on the final day of excavation.
A. Walthall - R. Souza - J. Benton - E. Wueste - A. Tharler ● Preliminary Report on the 2015 Field Season of the American Excavations at Morgantina:
Contrada Agnese Project (CAP)
3
www.fastionline.org/docs/FOLDER-it-2018-408.pdf
second century, around 200 BCE. In Phase
Five, dated around 200 BCE, clearing and
leveling activities took place. In Phase Six,
also assigned tentatively to the early second
century BCE, a final series of features, in-
cluding a very fragmentary wall, were added
on top of the ruins of the previous building.
The results of the 2015 season have prom-
pted us to revise the phasing scheme we
produced in the 2014 report, and so while the
phases largely overlap between the two
reports, the current scheme is more com-
prehensive.
Trench 40
Trench 40 had three main goals. First,
the trench was planned in order to explore
further areas originally opened in 2014, but
which remained unexcavated. Second,
Trench 40 was placed farther to the east than
previous CAP trenches, in an attempt to locate the
eastern extent of Lot 1 on insula W13/14S. Third,
Trench 40 was sited in such a fashion as to help
bridge the stratigraphy between that in Room 3,
partially excavated in 2014, and that of other rooms
in the same building (figs. 1-2).
Phase One - Primary Construction (middle of the
third century BCE)
The earliest evidence for human activity in
the area of Trench 40 is a levelling fill of crushed
bedrock that was partially excavated in 2014 and
largely left unexcavated in 2015. Construction tren-
ches for walls I’, L’’’, L’’’’, and K’ were dug into this
levelling fill and the foundations for the walls themselves were set in them (fig. 3). The construction trenches
were then filled with soil and stones around the foundations of the walls. Only small portions of the fills of the
construction trenches were excavated in 2015. Diagnostic material recovered therein was limited to ceramic
fragments, and the latest dateable sherd, a rim fragment of a black-gloss, outturned-rim plate or saucer (fig. 4),
is generally considered to be a product of the first half of the third century BCE4. This evidence provides a
terminus post quem of ca. 300 BCE for the earliest construction thus far identified in the Southeast Building.
Allowing for time to elapse between the vessel’s production and the eventual deposition of the fragment in the
fill even
4 For black-gloss outturned-rim plates or saucers at Morgantina, see MS VI: 85-87, nos. 9-10, where Shelly Stone considers
production of the shape to fall at the end of the fourth century or in the first half of the third century BCE, based on their presence in
fills belonging to the second quarter of the third century.
Fig. 3. Plan of Southeast Building with wall labels. Drawing by Giancarlo Filantropi and James Huemoeller.
Fig. 4. Rim fragment of a black-gloss, outturned-rim plate or saucer (P16-10) from fill of construction trench for wall K’ in Trench 40. Drawing by Mali Skotheim.
A. Walthall - R. Souza - J. Benton - E. Wueste - A. Tharler ● Preliminary Report on the 2015 Field Season of the American Excavations at Morgantina:
Contrada Agnese Project (CAP)
4
www.fastionline.org/docs/FOLDER-it-2018-408.pdf
fill of the construction trench, a date closer to
the middle of the third century (ca. 260/250
BCE) seems reasonable for the initial cons-
truction of the building. Such a date around
the middle of the century would also corre-
spond with the construction chronology pro-
posed for the North Baths, another major
monument in the Contrada Agnese5.
Within the confines of Trench 40, Walls
H, I, L, and K are notable for the consistency
of their construction, with large stones forming
the outward face and small stones facing the
interior of the room, at least for the courses
exposed thus far6. It remains to be seen
whether the entire elevation of these rubble
masonry walls was executed with the same
construction technique or if the technique was
different in lower courses and the founda-
tions. Construction technique cannot in itself provide a precise chronology for wall construction, but it is worth
noting that this double-faced technique, using large blocks or dressed stone on an exterior face and rubble on
an inner face. was regularly employed in both private and public architecture at Morgantina7. A large stone pier,
located in Room 8 at the intersection of walls M and R, has been tentatively dated to this phase (fig. 5). It is
well-dressed, with four flat vertical faces, one of which preserves a small carved depression of unknown
purpose. The corners of the pier are beveled in a similar fashion to the square bricks found throughout the
Southeast Building (fig. 6). We suggest that the pier here originally consisted of the large stone as the lowest
part, and a superstructure of beveled bricks in the upper part. While we otherwise possess little evidence for
the nature of the building during Phase One or for the primary function(s) of its spaces, the presence of the pier
suggests that we may have an interior portico of a peristyle or a pastas house8. The discovery of further piers
or column bases is required to confirm this hypothesis.
Phase Two - Occupation and Secondary Construction (third quarter of the third century BCE)
Spaces in the Southeast building were further defined in Phase Two by the construction of secondary
walls (M and R) which surround the Phase-One pier. The architecture within Trench 40—unlike that of Trench
39—is less easily divided into sub-phases of construction. The incorporation of the pier into these walls, as well
as the evident disregard for its initial function as an architectural support and decorative element, suggest that
the walls belong to a subsequent phase. They appear to indicate a rearrangement of the space south of Room
3, turning what may have been a portico into a narrow room, perhaps a corridor.
5 For the date of the North Baths, see LUCORE (2009, 2013).
6 Specifically, walls H’’’, I, I’, K, K’, L’’’, and L’’’’.
7 For the double-faced construction at Morgantina, see TSAKIRGIS 1984: 318-319, who notes that the technique was used in
domestic architecture dating to the third and second centuries. 8 On courtyards in houses at Morgantina, see TSAKIRGIS 1984: 375-382.
Fig. 5. Stone pier in Trench 40, looking east. Fig. 6. Terracotta brick with beveled corners from Southeast Building (43AF27). One of many found within the building. Drawing by Giancarlo Filantropi.
A. Walthall - R. Souza - J. Benton - E. Wueste - A. Tharler ● Preliminary Report on the 2015 Field Season of the American Excavations at Morgantina:
Contrada Agnese Project (CAP)
5
www.fastionline.org/docs/FOLDER-it-2018-408.pdf
Within Room 3, Phase Two is characte-
rized by the addition of leveling fill with a beaten-
earth floor above it. The packed earth floor first
isolated in 2014 and further excavated in 2015
contained a number of noteworthy objects, inclu-
ding a sawed cattle horn core (inv. 15-376), a
small, inscribed lead vessel, possibly a container
for medicine or an expensive ointment (inv. 15-
367; fig. 7), and a bronze coin of the mint of
Neapolis (inv. 15-373; fig. 8), which was struck
between 270 and 240 BCE9. To this phase we
also assign the placement of a pithos, first disco-
vered in 2014, that was partially embedded in
the beaten-earth floor (fig. 9). The soil within the
pithos, excavated in 2015 by ten-centimeter
spits and floated in its entirety, contained con-
centrations of cereals (wheat and barley), as
well as the remains of olives, grapes, and vetch.
Ample remains of cereals, pulses, and fruits—
such as olive, grape, and fig—have been identified in multiple contexts elsewhere in the building. Such diversity
of taxa recovered from within the pithos leads us to believe that the paleobotanical remains found therein are
more likely to be representative of the variety of foodstuffs consumed within the building or deposited with the
soil filling the pithos than they are indicative of any particular agricultural product once stored within the vessel
itself10
. Elsewhere in Room 3, the beaten-earth floor and fill below yielded few paleobotanical remains. We note
that the floor surface was clearly modified by post-depositional processes after its installation. For instance, we
differentiated and excavated separately a portion of the floor in the southwest corner of Room 3 with a reddish-
brown discoloration throughout, possibly caused by localized burning in the immediate vicinity.
9 Several dozen so-called medicine containers have been found at Morgantina over the past six decades; for discussion and
catalog, see SJӧQVIST 1960; MS VI: 111-113 and 323-325; TABORELLI, MARENGO 2017. This is the first specimen made of lead that
has been found at the site. The inscription, presently only partially visible, reads [-]I[--]KΛEΟ[--]. A separate publication of this
vessel is currently being prepared by Dr. Mali Skotheim and Anne Truetzel, who have employed a number of digital approaches to
render the inscription legible. We thank Prof. Luigi Taborelli and Prof.ssa Silvia Maria Marengo for their valuable assistance with
the identification of comparanda for our vessel. For the coin of Neapolis: inv. 15-373. AE, Ø 19.88mm, 4.90g, 30º. Obv. Head of
Apollo (l.) / Rev. Man-headed bull (r.); above, Nike; ΙΣ. Neapolis, ca. 275-250 BCE. MS II 14d, HN Italy, 589. 10
We would like to thank Dr. China Shelton for providing us a provisional report on the macrobotanical remains collected in 2015.
Fig. 7. Inv. 15-367. Miniature lead vessel from Trench 40. Fig. 8. Inv. 15-373. Bronze coin of Neapolis from Trench 40.
A. Walthall - R. Souza - J. Benton - E. Wueste - A. Tharler ● Preliminary Report on the 2015 Field Season of the American Excavations at Morgantina:
Contrada Agnese Project (CAP)
6
www.fastionline.org/docs/FOLDER-it-2018-408.pdf
Phase Three - Occupation (second half of
the third century BCE)
Phase Three represents the final
period of activity in the building before its
abandonment. It is distinguished by the ar-
tifacts and the occupation layer which accu-
mulated immediately over the last floor sur-
face of the room. Phase Three ended with
the collapse of the roof (Phase Four, be-
low). The objects from this final phase of
occupation give some indication as to the
nature of activity taking place within the
room in the period leading up to its aban-
donment. The terracotta base of a louterion
(or perirrhanterion), was found on the floor
in the SW corner leaning against Wall I’ (fig.
10). No trace of the dish that once sat on
top of the base was found, leaving it uncertain as to whether the louterion was originally a fixture or was placed
there later as part of the later, post-abandonment clearing operations that seem to have taken place within the
Southeast Building (Phase Five: see below). Perhaps more compelling evidence for the use of Room 3 is the
concentration of storage vessels within it, represented not only by the two largely complete vessels, but also by
fragments of several more, scattered throughout and mixed in with the layer of roof tile collapse11
. Despite this
apparent abundance of storage vessels, neither the arrangement of doorways in Room 3 nor the current
location of the standing pithos (partially blocking the doorway leading to the east) suggests the space was
originally intended for long-term storage. One possible explanation for the present situation is that Room 3 was
use
11
In the 2014 excavation of Trench 36, similarly high concentrations of ceramic pithos fragments were noted at corresponding
levels; WALTHALL et al. 2016: 10.
Fig. 9. Section through Trench 40 (Room 3), looking north. Drawing by Giancarlo Filantropi.
Fig. 10. Louterion base from Trench 40 (Room 3).
A. Walthall - R. Souza - J. Benton - E. Wueste - A. Tharler ● Preliminary Report on the 2015 Field Season of the American Excavations at Morgantina:
Contrada Agnese Project (CAP)
7
www.fastionline.org/docs/FOLDER-it-2018-408.pdf
used for the temporary storage of these large vessels, and possibly other large objects like the louterion, while
other portions of the house were being renovated or undergoing new construction12
.
Twenty-one bronze coins were recovered in 2015 from occupation contexts in Room 313
. Included in
this number are those belonging to a small hoard, containing seven Syracusan coins, that was found buried
against the west face of Wall K’ (fig. 11). Since they were found adjacent to the wall and not underneath it, they
were likely deposited after the the wall was already standing, during a period when the room was in use. The
late
12
See PERROTTA 2008: 23-34, for a similar interpretation of a room used for the temporary storage of architectural elements and
storage containers, in a house located at Monte di San Fratello (ancient Apollonia) in Messina province. 13
An additional eleven bronze coins were recovered from layers associated with the use of Room 3 in 2014, bringing the total to
thirty two coins from the room. A complete catalog of coins will appear in the final publication of the CAP excavations.
Fig. 11. Coin hoard from Trench 40 (Room 3).
A. Walthall - R. Souza - J. Benton - E. Wueste - A. Tharler ● Preliminary Report on the 2015 Field Season of the American Excavations at Morgantina:
Contrada Agnese Project (CAP)
8
www.fastionline.org/docs/FOLDER-it-2018-408.pdf
latest coins in the hoard are part of the prolific
bronze issues struck at Syracuse during the first
three decades of Hieron II’s reign (ca. 269–241
BCE). The hoard’s composition, in which coin
types from the later decades of Hieron’s reign
(ca. 240–215 BCE) are notably absent, points to
a date of deposition in the second or third
quarter of the third century, decades before the
abandonment of the building14
. Two Roman
coins (fig. 12) found in the soil layer overlying
the floor surface are the latest datable objects
from below the tile fall. As such, they help to
establish a terminus post quem for the collapse
of the roof at 211 BCE15
. The absence of
ceramic and numismatic materials datable to
the second century BCE from the contexts that
comprise Phase Three leads us to suggest
tentatively that occupation in Room 3 took en-
ded before the final decade of the third century.
Finally, we also provisionally assign a
small oven, built in Room 9 against the south
face of Wall M, to Phase Three (fig. 13). The
oven consists of at least one large flat pantile
set on soil, with a dome built of brick and tile
fragments. It was only partially exposed in 2015
due to concerns for its preservation. The fact
that the pantile rests on soil and cannot yet be
associated with a defined floor level makes us
hesitant to place the oven’s installation in the
early construction phases of the building. At
present, we are considering this an intervention
made late in the occupation of the building, but
prior to the collapse of the tile roof, which
appears to have fallen on top of the oven.
However, we note that the tile collapse of
Phase Four (below) did not cover the oven as
extensively as it did elsewhere in this trench, leaving open the possibility that its installation occurred even later,
after the phase of initial abandonment and destruction described below. Future excavations will reveal the oven
in its entirety described
14
The contents of this hoard and that of two additional coin hoards discovered in the Southeast Building will be published together
as a separate article, currently being prepared by A. Walthall. 15
Both coins (inv. 15-371 and 15-374) are bronze sextantes of the type, Obv. Head of Mercury r.; behind, two dots / Rev. Prow r.;
above, ear of grain; Catania (Roman Mint), ca. 211-208 BCE. MS II 520, RRC 69/6. One of these coins (inv. 15-371) was
overstruck on a Poseidon/Trident bronze of Hieron II (MS II 367 or 368).
Fig. 12. Inv. 15-371 and 15-374. Roman sextantes from Trench 40 (Room 3).
Fig. 13. Remains of an oven in Trench 40 (Room 9), looking east.
A. Walthall - R. Souza - J. Benton - E. Wueste - A. Tharler ● Preliminary Report on the 2015 Field Season of the American Excavations at Morgantina:
Contrada Agnese Project (CAP)
9
www.fastionline.org/docs/FOLDER-it-2018-408.pdf
in its entirety, at which point we hope
to establish with greater certainty
where precisely the oven fits within
the sequence of the building’s occu-
pation history.
Phase Four - Initial Abandonment and
Destruction (after 211 BCE)
Phase Four represents the
abandonment and destruction of the
rooms within Trench 40. The tiled roof collapsed after 211 BCE, as the coin finds from Room 3 indicate.
According to our present interpretation, this terminal collapse of the roof tiles does not appear to have been
connected with the violence that characterized the Roman siege of 211 BCE, as no evidence for destruction by
fire or burning has so far been found within the building. Rather, the collapse of the roof may have been the end
result of a longer process of deterioration. The soil among the tiles contained ample traces of wall plaster and
dozens of iron nails, surely elements of the room’s timber superstructure. A flattened and broken - but
remarkably complete - second pithos was discovered surrounded by tiles Room 3. Next to this pithos lay a
circular pithos lid and the upper element of a “hopper-rubber” type millstone, both of which rested directly on
the beaten-earth floor surface (fig. 14). Although the deposition of the pithos was consistent with the other
debris of Phase Four, the vessel’s complete preservation suggests to us that it was present in the room during
Phase Three, and thus may have served a function similar to that of the intact pithos, discussed above.
A reddish-yellow sandy soil accumulated above the tiles and the broken pithos. This soil was remarkably
sterile and contained no visible concentration of inclusions aside from a notable quantity of white wall plaster,
which was sometimes preserved in large sheets. We suspect that this soil layer may be degraded mudbrick or
pisé that once formed the upper courses of the walls in Room 316
. Flotation and environmental analyses
confirmed the soil forming the deposits found immediately above and throughout the tile fall later contained very
little paleobotanical material.
Phase Five - post-destruction cleanup (After 211 BCE)
Phase Five is characterized by the intentional infilling of a depression in the soil that formed along the
central north-south axis of Room 3. This thick layer of debris, consisting primarily of stones, tiles, and pottery,
was laid down to create a roughly level surface throughout the room. A contiguous portion of this fill was
excavated in Room 3 during the 2014 season (Trench 36), when it was first identified and interpreted as
intentional fill based on the analysis of ceramic material contained therein17
. Over this mixed fill, a homogenous
yellow sandy soil was deposited—intentionally, we believe—to serve as a solid layer on which to construct Wall
F (see below). This deposit contained worn pottery of the later half of the third century and a coin of the
Syracusan mint that was struck sometime between 240–215 BCE, during the reign of Hieron II (inv. 15-47).
Since we already know that these possible clean-up operations had to have taken place after 211 BCE, the
ceramic and numismatic evidence recovered from this fill in Room 3 does not help to narrow the chronology for
Phase Five. We note that this infilling of Room 3 may well have been undertaken in preparation for the
construct
16
For the use of mudbrick in domestic architecture at Morgantina, see TSAKIRGIS 1984: 306-307. 17
WALTHALL et al. 2016: 9-11.
Fig. 14. Smashed pithos in Trench 40 (Room 3), looking east.
A. Walthall - R. Souza - J. Benton - E. Wueste - A. Tharler ● Preliminary Report on the 2015 Field Season of the American Excavations at Morgantina:
Contrada Agnese Project (CAP)
10
www.fastionline.org/docs/FOLDER-it-2018-408.pdf
construction of Wall F, in which case
the actions here are better situated in
Phase Six. In that case the deposition
of rubble, addition of the leveling layer
of yellow soil, and construction of Wall
F would constitute three successive
steps in a unified building action. At
present, however, we have chosen to
retain this distinction between Phase
Five and Phase Six, as first defined in
our previous report, on the grounds
that we cannot yet conclusively point
to an immediate temporal relationship
between Wall F and the addition of
rubble fill and yellow soil. Evidence for
interventions elsewhere inside the
building that may be characterized as
post-destruction cleanup was identi-
fied in Room 5 during the 2014 sea-
son18
.
Phase Six - Post-abandonment construction (end of the third century/early second century BCE)
Wall F, first uncovered in 2014, is the most notable construction feature of this phase. In 2015, Wall F
was found to extend ca. 1m east of Room 3’s eastern wall (Phase One: Wall K, K’) into an area we have
provisionally named Room 4. The later wall, for which only the lowest course of stones are preserved, gradually
slopes from east to west. It terminates abruptly at the higher east end, where it was likely damaged by modern
agricultural activity. The portion of Wall F exposed by Trench 40 in 2015 did not shed light on the wall’s
purpose19
. It is nonetheless significant that by the time of Wall F’s construction, the roof above Room 3 had
collapsed and the upper courses of Wall K/K’, whether originally built of stone or mudbrick, had been reduced
to its current state.
At the southern end of Trench 40, corresponding to portions of Rooms 8 and 9, no thick leveling fill of
debris like that in Rome 3 was deposited. Instead, at a slightly lower elevation, a loosely-dispersed layer of
small and medium-sized stones appeared to create a rough, horizontal surface that measured approximately
2.5m x 5m (fig. 15). This enigmatic feature was too regular to have occurred naturally; nevertheless the function
of this intermittent earth-and-stone surface remains unclear, not least because it does not show any wear
pattern that would indicate its purpose. The simple and similar construction technique of this stone surface and
Wall F, as well as their stratigraphic relationships, lead us to associate the two.
18
IBID., 17. 19
For further discussion of Wall F and its possible function, see WALTHALL et al. 2016: 11, where it is identified as “Wall M” accor-
ding to earlier naming conventions.
Fig. 15. Aerial orthophoto of Trench 40. Dashed line indicates extent of rubble surface belonging to Phase Six. The white shaded area indicates where a portion of the rubble was removed by excavators.
A. Walthall - R. Souza - J. Benton - E. Wueste - A. Tharler ● Preliminary Report on the 2015 Field Season of the American Excavations at Morgantina:
Contrada Agnese Project (CAP)
11
www.fastionline.org/docs/FOLDER-it-2018-408.pdf
Phase Seven - Final abandonment/destruction (early second century BCE)
After the construction activity of Phase Six, no further evidence of human activity was preserved. The
preserved top of Wall F, for example, was very close to the modern ground level, and so any depositional
contexts associated with its use have likely been destroyed by modern agricultural activity. We encountered no
stratified deposits that could attest to activity post-dating the Phase-Six construction; rather, modern topsoil sits
directly on the architectural remains of that phase.
Trench 39
Trench 39 was opened with the aim of expanding on work completed in Trench 37 during the 2014
season. The trench was laid out as a 10m x 10m square at the northwestern corner of Lot 1, and it included the
entire extent of Trench 37 (figs. 1-2). Because initial plans involved continuing to excavate in the area of Trench
37, both the 2014 backfill and the debris from looters’ activity in the spring of 2015 were removed20
. However,
the early discovery of significant architectural features and undisturbed stratigraphy very near the modern
surface preempted further investigation of the area of Trench 37, which was thus left untouched in 2015.
Excavation in Trench 39 very quickly revealed walls that allowed us to delineate several new rooms in
the Southeast Building, as well as architectural features and fragments that gave intriguing clues about the
building’s central room or rooms. Most importantly, the early discovery of toppled brick column drums and a
partially preserved column base, consisting of three drums in situ, indicated that the building might include a
courtyard, as hypothesized above in our discussion of the stone pier from Trench 40. Other notable features
included a cocciopesto platform in the center of the trench and an L-shaped stone feature in the southeast that
may have served as the base of a staircase leading to an upper story. Several phases of construction and
occupation were evident, in some cases with associated human-made surfaces.
Phase One - Primary Construction (middle of the third century BCE)
The first phase of activity, the primary construction of the walls that defined the earliest form of the
Southeast Building, was fully attested in Trench 39. Wall A, the western wall of the building, was first docu-
mented in 2014; here it continued running south as expected, and met Wall N in a bonded junction near the
southwest corner of the trench. Wall N ran east along the southern limit of the trench and bonded with Wall J at
a point ca. 0.98m east of the line of Wall C to the north. Wall J ran north up to, but possibly past, Wall B. Thus
Walls A, N, J, and B delineated a rectangular room, Room 5, which had at least three doors: one relatively wide
aperture (ca. 1.42m) near the midpoint of the western wall A, another (ca. 1.35m) near the midpoint of the
eastern wall J, and one narrower doorway (ca. 0.84m) near the midpoint of the southern wall N. Beyond
delineating the outline of the walls, Room 5 was not further excavated for lack of time; our focus remained on
the deposits lying east of Wall J, inside what came to be identified as Room 6.
The eastern half of Trench 39 corresponded with the central area of the Southeast Building (Room 6),
and it was therefore anticipated that its excavation could yield important information for our understanding of
the building as a whole. In Phase One, Wall J separated this area from Room 5 to the west, while Wall L
separated it from a room to the north. The eastern extent of Room 6 could not be determined, as the eastern
trench boundary cut through the room to the northeast, while Wall O, a wall of uncertain date, ran just inside the
trench boundary to the southeast. It is unclear whether the area we have designated as Room 6 was in fact a
covered space during this first phase of building or whether it was an external yard. No floor or other evidence
of occupation was discovered for Phase One in Trench 39. We did not reach the bottom of any of the walls in
this trench, and so as yet we have no deposits to associate with their construction.
20
On the looting, see WALTHALL et al. 2016: 20-21.
A. Walthall - R. Souza - J. Benton - E. Wueste - A. Tharler ● Preliminary Report on the 2015 Field Season of the American Excavations at Morgantina:
Contrada Agnese Project (CAP)
12
www.fastionline.org/docs/FOLDER-it-2018-408.pdf
Fig. 16. Aerial orthophoto of the eastern half of Trench 39 (Room 6), indicating the location of key features discussed in text.
Phase Two - Occupation and Secondary Construction (third quarter of the third century BCE)
At some point after the primary walls were laid out, additional walls and features were added. Wall N’’
was added as the continuation of Wall N/N’, the southern boundary of Room 5 and now also of Room 6. Wall
N’’ does not bond with the earlier walls of Room 5, nor does it appear to have bonded with Wall O to the east,
though any possible intersection had been destroyed by a pit dug in Phase Seven, eliminating direct evidence
of the relationship of these two walls in this corner of the room (fig. 16, no.7). Wall O has been only partially
excavated, so we cannot confidently place it within our phasing scheme yet. However, based on stratigraphic
relationships, it should belong to Phase Two (or possibly Phase Three).
At the southwest corner of Room 6 (formed by walls J and N’’), an L-shaped stone feature was set with
its long axis running North-South along Wall J (fig. 16, no.6; fig. 17). This feature does not bond with either wall
and
A. Walthall - R. Souza - J. Benton - E. Wueste - A. Tharler ● Preliminary Report on the 2015 Field Season of the American Excavations at Morgantina:
Contrada Agnese Project (CAP)
13
www.fastionline.org/docs/FOLDER-it-2018-408.pdf
and so should postdate their construction, although per-
haps by only a short period of time. Most of the body of the
feature was constructed with small stones set in mud
mortar, but the eastern end of the short axis preserved
larger blocks that formed two stepped courses. The fea-
ture may therefore have been the stone foundations of a
staircase, added to give access to the roof or an upper
story (likely constructed in perishable materials; see below
for further discussion). Staircases in ancient Greek houses
were often located in the courtyard.
A floor surface consisting of finely crushed, yello-
wish stone (identifiable as the local sandstone bedrock)
belonging to this construction phase was identified and
partially excavated. This surface of redeposited bedrock
(fig. 18) extended throughout the open area of Room 6,
ran up to the walls that defined the room in all directions,
but not over top of the L-shaped feature. A small saggio
(ca. 30cm x 60cm x 35cm) was dug through this surface in
the northern part of the room against Wall L (fig. 16, no.6;
fig. 19). This saggio produced little diagnostic material
aside from some black-gloss sherds, which are only gene-
rally attributable to the 3rd century BCE (fig. 20). The
comparative lack of inclusions in such a thick deposit (ca.
35cm in depth), as well as its position below a well-preser-
ved floor surface, suggest that this fill was deliberately
added to raise the ground level, possibly early in the occu-
pational history of the Contrada Agnese. This was done,
we believe, to create a floor surface in Room 6 at the same
elevation as the floor in Room 5.
Additional modifications to this area of the building
cannot be separated from other activities in this phase. A
column base, found in situ, belongs to this phase, although
it
Fig. 17. Aerial orthophoto of the possible foundations for a staircase in Trench 39 (Room 6).
Fig. 18. View of Room 6, looking north.
Fig. 19. Saggio dug through the late floor surface in Trench 39 (Room 6), looking north.
Fig. 20. Black-gloss sherds recovered from saggio.
A. Walthall - R. Souza - J. Benton - E. Wueste - A. Tharler ● Preliminary Report on the 2015 Field Season of the American Excavations at Morgantina:
Contrada Agnese Project (CAP)
14
www.fastionline.org/docs/FOLDER-it-2018-408.pdf
its immediate relationship with the features described above is as yet unresolved. The standing remains
consisted of three stacked terracotta column drums (thickness ca. 8cm; diameter ca. 36cm) resting on what
appeared to be a roughly-cut rectangular stone base. The stone base on which the terracotta column drums
stand does not appear to have been finished, as there was no evidence for the application of a plaster coat or
the refinement of the stone’s visible faces. That the base itself rested on the yellow crushed bedrock surface
(fig. 16, no. 4; fig. 21) would appear to indicate the column was a late addition to the space21
. This is further
suggested by the column’s placement, close to the doorway that connected Rooms 5 and 6, which would have
partially restricted one’s line of sight (and possibly one’s movement) between the two spaces. Future work may
clarify the situation, but at present we tentatively place the column as a late modification in Phase Two.
Phase Three - Occupation (second half of the third century BCE)
We do not know how long the area was used in its Phase-Two form, but a later series of modifications
significantly altered the nature of Room 6, and represent continued occupation of the building. We have
assigned these activities to a later period, Phase Three.
In the northwest corner of Room 6, a cocciopesto surface was installed in a roughly rectangular area
bounded by Walls J, L, and to the south by a line of stone terminating in the column base (fig. 16, no. 3). The
eastern edge of the surface was defined by a line of terracotta brick fragments set along the edge of the
cocciopesto to create a straight line. While the selection and placement of fragments produced an impression
of whole bricks broken in place, amphora and tile fragments set vertically in the spaces between them
demonstrates that the broken pieces were intentionally set together. The cocciopesto surface was damaged in
the northwest corner by a large pit, dug at some later time (Phase Seven: fig. 16, no. 2), which also seems to
have destroyed a portion of walls J and L. Another smaller pit (also Phase Seven) had been dug against the
column base at the southeast corner of the cocciopesto surface. Removal of the soil filling this second pit
revealed the end of a terracotta water pipe, which ran under the cocciopesto pavement. This pipe was oriented
in the direction of a shallow drain formed by a line of upturned roof tiles laid end-to-end (fig. 22). The curving
line of tiles ran southeast from the cocciopesto feature into the southern half of Room 6 (fig. 16, no. 5).
Although the small pit near the column base has destroyed any direct connection between the water pipe and
the line of upturned tiles, it is not unreasonable to suppose that the two features were originally linked and
served to channel water to the south and out of the room. The use of waterproof building material (cocciopesto)
and
21
Columns constructed of terracotta drums were a common feature of most peristyle houses at Morgantina, according to
TSAKIRGIS 1984: 346-347, n. 27. Unlike the terracotta drums found in the Southeast Building, most columns from domestic
contexts, especially those of larger diameter, used annular drums (i.e. they have a hole at the center). White stucco was often
applied to the exterior of these brick columns, so as to lend them the appearance of marble or fine-grained limestone. On the
application of plaster, see TSAKIRGIS 1984: 309.
Fig. 21. Cocciopesto platform and stacked terracotta column drums (detail).
Fig. 22. Terracotta tube in section, running under the cocciopesto feature in Trench 39 (Room 6), looking west.
A. Walthall - R. Souza - J. Benton - E. Wueste - A. Tharler ● Preliminary Report on the 2015 Field Season of the American Excavations at Morgantina:
Contrada Agnese Project (CAP)
15
www.fastionline.org/docs/FOLDER-it-2018-408.pdf
and presence of a drain suggests this portion of the building may have been open to the air. The discovery of
column drums in this area gives further indication that we may have a pastas or peristyle arrangement at the
center of the building.
On top of the upturned roof tiles and throughout Room 6, a thin layer of brown silt was deposited,
perhaps evidence that the room was occupied and used while the drain remained open. This soil contained a
badly damaged iron key (fig. 23), along with some bronze and iron fragments and partially intact pottery, which
may support the hypothesis that the silty soil accumulated while the space was in use. Over the brown silty soil,
a surface composed of large ceramic fragments was laid down (fig. 24). Pithos body fragments and lids
covered the drain and extended south into the rest of Room 6, although never reaching any of the walls. This
layer, which we have interpreted as a partial pavement, may well have originally been placed directly on the
upturned tiles that formed the drain, in which case, the silty soil that accumulated between the two could have
simply filtered down through the interstices. It is also possible that the pithos fragments were laid over the drain
after it had already been covered with silty soil; if water continued to drain along roughly the same path, the
pithos fragments may have been put down to create a walking surface in otherwise muddy soil. Several of the
pithos fragments, including both lids and body fragments, appear to have been broken in place, so that initially
the surface may have been composed of fewer, larger fragments that the inhabitants of the space broke down
by walking over them.
Phase Four - Initial Abandonment (after 211 BCE)
While in other parts of the building Phase Three ended with the partial or complete collapse of the roof
and abandonment of the area, in Room 6, at least, the roof appears to have remained in place. No evidence of
destruction in Phase Four was encountered here; rather, the room appears to have been abandoned as
indicated by a relatively thin soil deposit covering the open surface of the room. This deposit contained a large
number of iron nails and lead fragments as well as some intact small ceramic vessels. The sandy clay matrix,
which
Fig. 23. Inv. 15-355. Iron key from Trench 39 (Room 6). Drawing by Mali Skotheim.
Fig. 24. Pithos fragments used as pavement in Trench 39 (Room 6), looking north.
A. Walthall - R. Souza - J. Benton - E. Wueste - A. Tharler ● Preliminary Report on the 2015 Field Season of the American Excavations at Morgantina:
Contrada Agnese Project (CAP)
16
www.fastionline.org/docs/FOLDER-it-2018-408.pdf
which preserved some plaster inclusions, is consistent with the abandonment or ephemeral use of an internal,
roofed space. The presence of well-preserved ceramic pieces, along with metal objects (iron and lead) that
could be melted down or reused, leads us to set aside the possibility that the deposit was an intentional fill.
As was the case in Room 3, the initial abandonment of Room 6 can be dated to the final years of the
third century on the basis of the numismatic evidence recovered from the soil layers which accumulated there.
Most notable, in this regard, is a Roman triens, minted in Sicily from 211-208 BCE (fig. 25)22
. Other diagnostic
objects, though not necessarily helpful in establishing a more refined chronology, include two relatively large
terracotta figurine heads, a hairpin or stylus element made from worked bone, and the blade of an iron knife
(fig. 26).
Phase Five - Post-abandonment clean-up (After 211 BCE)
No signs of post-abandonment cleaning were encountered in this trench. Given our interpretation of the
Phase Four accumulation over the Phase Three floor as the product of abandonment, and given the activity
documented in Phase Six (see below), we suggest that some grading or leveling of the top surface of the
abandonment deposit may have occurred. The tile collapse of Phase Seven did indeed lie on a mostly flat
surface, but we hypothesize that this was created by grading flat the surface of a deposit already in existence
rather than laying down that deposit to raise the ground level. It must be stressed that this Phase Five activity is
strictly hypothetical, and while positive evidence for such activity is lacking, the removal of material is more
difficult to detect than deposition or construction.
Phase Six - Post-abandonment construction (end of the third century/early second century BCE)
Following the abandonment of Phase Four and the potential leveling of Phase Five, a number of
modifications were made to Room 6, although their precise purpose is unclear. By the same token, these
modifications may still have been underway when the roof collapsed in Phase Seven, as indicated by the lack
of any depositional activity between the contexts of Phase Six and those of Phase Seven. Nevertheless, these
interventions markedly changed the use of this space.
22
Inv. 15-156. AE, triens, Ø 23.85mm, 10.82g, 270º. Obv. Head of Minerva r. / Rev. Prow r.; above, grain ear; below, ROMA.
Catania (Roman Mint), ca. 211-208 BCE; MS II 519, RRC 69/4.
Fig. 25. Inv. 15-156. Roman triens from Trench 39 (Room 6).
Fig. 26. Objects from abandonment contexts in Trench 39 (Room 6).
A. Walthall - R. Souza - J. Benton - E. Wueste - A. Tharler ● Preliminary Report on the 2015 Field Season of the American Excavations at Morgantina:
Contrada Agnese Project (CAP)
17
www.fastionline.org/docs/FOLDER-it-2018-408.pdf
In the southern part of Room 6, a new wall (Wall E) was laid running East from the L-shaped feature (fig.
3). Wall E was composed of medium-sized blocks infilled with smaller stones, and was preserved only in one
course that ran ca. 0.90m east in the direction of Wall O, at the point where Wall O formed a corner with Wall P.
Its narrow width, its dry-laid construction technique, and the lack of plaster all suggest that the remains we
discovered may not have supported a full-height wall, but perhaps served another, still unknown, purpose.
In the northeast corner of Room 6, one course of stones and brick fragments was laid down running
North-South, parallel to Wall O but offset by ca. 30cm to the East. While this feature may have served as the
bottom course or socle of a wall, its flat upper surface instead suggests that it was a step which negotiated a
change in elevation from the eastern part of Room 6 into Room 7. The composition of this step—a bricolage of
stone, terracotta bricks, and tile fragments—fits well within a scenario of renovation to the interior of the building
following a period of abandonment. In the western part of Room 6, where a line of stones had been set along
the southern edge of the cocciopesto feature in Phase Three, a new line of stones was set in soil nearly parallel
to the old line and ca. 0.28-0.43m south of it (fig. 27). The placement of these stones effectively divided the
doorway leading from Room 5 to Room 6.
Along the north wall (Wall L) of Room 6, a last modification was made: a collection of five broad, curved
roof tiles were placed against the wall, and in some cases just over the edge of the wall (fig. 28). This
placement of tiles over the preserved edge of the rubble surface of the wall indicates either that the wall had
been reduced to its present elevation before the tiles were deposited, or that it was always intended to be a low
wall negotiating passage between Rooms 2 and 6. The absence of a discernible rubble layer in the immediate
vicinity, which would signal a collapsed rubble wall, and the use of tile fragments laid flat to level the top of the
wall may support these hypotheses. We have also speculated, however, that some walls in the Southwest
Building may have had stone foundations with a superstructure of mudbrick or another type of earthen
construction; this too might explain the presence of the tiles aside and slightly atop Wall L. The stacked roof
tiles preserved an orthogonal arrangement: the westernmost tile was laid perpendicular to Wall L and next to
the brick feature just mentioned, while two more were laid parallel to the wall. This feature turned out to be a
short stack of tiles, as two additional tiles were found directly below two of the upper-course tiles in the same
position and orientation. All the tiles seem to have been broken in situ, and they appear to have been carefully
and intentionally deposited against the wall shortly before the collapse of the roof in Phase Seven. It is unclear
why the tiles were collected in this way, but one possible explanation is that they were gathered here from
portions of the roof that had already collapsed and were being stored for later use. This fits our hypothesis that
the roof fell at different times in different rooms and not all at a single moment as a result of a catastrophic
event.
Fig. 27. Upright stone feature south of cocciopesto in Trench 39 (Room 6), looking north.
Fig. 28. Intentionally stacked roof tiles in Trench 39 (Room 6).
A. Walthall - R. Souza - J. Benton - E. Wueste - A. Tharler ● Preliminary Report on the 2015 Field Season of the American Excavations at Morgantina:
Contrada Agnese Project (CAP)
18
www.fastionline.org/docs/FOLDER-it-2018-408.pdf
Phase Seven - Final abandonment/destruction (after the second century BCE)
The roof appears to have collapsed over Room 6 soon after the modifications of Phase Six were
complete (and perhaps before other modifications could be undertaken). The fact that the fallen tiles were
found resting directly on the interventions of Phase Six shows that a long period of use or abandonment did not
intervene between Phases Six and Seven. Based on the numismatic material assigned to Phase Four (above,
inv. 15-156), we can confidently date the collapse of the roof over Room 6 after 211 BCE. Terracotta column
drums found in the upper layers of the tile collapse indicate that these roof supports were still at least partially
standing when the roof itself fell. Similarly, a patchy layer of rubble resting immediately above the tiles suggests
the walls remained standing for some period following the collapse of the roof.
Aside from three small pits of indeterminate date dug at the northwest and southeast corners of Room 6,
no activity is attested in Trench 39 after the collapse of the roof. These pits have every indication of being the
products of relatively modern clandestine activity. As noted above in the discussion of Trench 40, the modern
ground level rests very close to the top of ancient stratigraphy in places23
. As a result, evidence for the latest
ancient activity may have been erased by modern agricultural activity. Indeed, the lack of a thicker topsoil layer
makes understanding earlier phases difficult as well. One particular problem is that there is not enough rubble
in Trench 39 to account for the volume of the walls that must have been holding up the roof of Room 6. This
material may be lacking because the stones were removed from the topsoil to facilitate ploughing. Yet the
scanty rubble deposits found over the tile collapse also point suggestively to the possibility that the upper
courses of the walls that formed Room 6 were executed in mud brick, as was hypothesized for the walls in
Room 3. Accordingly, as the mudbrick portions of the walls dissolved, the unconsolidated soil was thus
dispersed throughout the room, where it would have mixed with topsoil or been removed by modern ploughing.
At this stage, it is impossible to determine the cause of the missing wall volume, and therefore we cannot say
how the upper courses of the walls in Room 6 were constructed.
Trench 41
Trench 41 was opened for the purpose of locating the southern perimeter of the building and gathering
additional information about the activities that took place inside it. Initially opened at 4.5m N/S x 3.0m E/W in
plan (figs. 1-2), excavations were continued only in the southern portion of the trench (2m x 3m) after reaching
archaeologically secure layers from -20cm below topsoil. Since Trench 41 was not contiguous with the other
CAP trenches, the phasing can only be tentatively tied to that observed in trenches 39 and 40 at the northern
end of the building. Additionally, since excavations reached neither wall foundations nor construction contexts
in Trench 41, we begin with Phase Two, tentatively linking the earliest documented activity with the Phase Two
construction and occupation documented in Trenches 39 and 40.
Phase Two - Occupation and Secondary Construction (third quarter of the third century BCE)
The earliest activity documented within the trench is the construction of a rubble wall (Wall V) along the
eastern side of the trench. This wall was oriented north-south, roughly parallel with the two north-south walls
(Walls S and U) excavated to the west of Trench 41 in 201424
. Although not fully excavated in the northern half
of the trench; it continued to the north (as Wall V’) beyond the limits of the trench. There appears to have been
a doorway in Wall V that led into a room to the east. This doorway was blocked up with rubble at some later
point. In the southern portion of the trench, excavations revealed several courses of Wall V, but did not reach
its foundations. The construction of Wall V/V’ in unmortared rubble, without the use of large, dressed stone
blocks, leads us to place it tentatively in Phase Two, when walls of similar technique appear elsewhere in the
building. Until we can directly connect the stratigraphic sequences in all trenches, this phasing remains
provisional.
23
WALTHALL et al. 2016: 11. 24
For documentation of Trench 38 from 2014, see WALTHALL et al. 2016: 18-20.
A. Walthall - R. Souza - J. Benton - E. Wueste - A. Tharler ● Preliminary Report on the 2015 Field Season of the American Excavations at Morgantina:
Contrada Agnese Project (CAP)
19
www.fastionline.org/docs/FOLDER-it-2018-408.pdf
Fig. 29. Brick-and-millstone pavement in Trench 41, looking north. Fig. 30. Inv. 15-212. Squat conical skyphos from deposit below brick-and-millstone pavement in Trench 41. Drawing by Mali Skotheim.
Phase Three - Occupation (second half of the third century BCE)
Following the construction of Wall V, a pavement composed of terracotta bricks and volcanic millstones
was installed (fig. 29)25
. The pavement appears to have been damaged or partially dismantled in antiquity. The
exact function of this feature is not immediately evident, given its limited size (1.35m x 1.95m) and irregular
shape. Pavements of terracotta bricks are found elsewhere at Morgantina in a variety of domestic, commercial,
and industrial contexts26
. None of these pavements, to our knowledge, incorporate millstone fragments, which
in this instance may have simply been inclusions of convenience.
The pavement abuts Wall V and is thus clearly of subsequent construction. Two bricks belonging to the
pavement were lifted in order to recover datable material below. From the soil layers immediately underlying
the bricks, excavators recovered several fragmentary black-gloss vessels of mid-third century date, including a
nearly complete locally-produced cup in the style of an Attic Type A squat conical skyphos (fig. 30). These
squat conical skyphoi are considered by Shelley Stone to be “characteristic of the second half of the [third]
century”27
. This deposit also contained a worn bronze Siculo-Punic coin struck sometime between 310 and 280
BCE, further corroborating a mid-third century date for the laying of the pavement (fig. 31)28
. Because Wall V
continued down well below the brick-and-millstone pavement, an earlier floor surface associated with the wall
may lie at a lower level. Accordingly, we have currently assigned this higher pavement to Phase Three,
perhaps to be associated with the renovations to the building documented in Trenches 39 and 40.
25
All three millstones are of the Hopper-Rubber type, see WHITE 1963: 202. 26
TSAKIRGIS 1984: 333-334 notes that when used as a floor pavement in domestic contexts, terracotta bricks are generally found in
courtyards and service areas. 27
For the chronology of these skyphoi, see MS VI 104-105, nos. 57-61. 28
Inv. 15-301. AE, Ø 19.83mm, 3.38g, 90o. Obv. Head of Tanit l. / Rev. Horse standing r., behind, palm tree. Siculo-Punic mint, ca.
310-280 BCE. MSII 436, and see now, FREY-KUPPER 2013, nos. 815-1085.
A. Walthall - R. Souza - J. Benton - E. Wueste - A. Tharler ● Preliminary Report on the 2015 Field Season of the American Excavations at Morgantina:
Contrada Agnese Project (CAP)
20
www.fastionline.org/docs/FOLDER-it-2018-408.pdf
Phase Four - Abandonment and Destruction (after 211
BCE)
The abandonment of the area was evident in a
partially-preserved layer of collapsed roof tiles and an
associated scatter of mixed ceramic material (frag-
ments of a Greco-Italic amphora and coarse ware ves-
sels) that was found immediately above the brick-and-
millstone pavement. Within this mixed debris, exca-
vators found a silver octobol of Hieron II (fig. 32), the
first of its type recovered in controlled excavations at
Morgantina29
. The loss of such a large silver coin—a
rare find at Morgantina—suggests that the building was
abandoned in haste. The presence of fragmentary roof
tiles amid the destruction layer would appear to
indicate that this space was originally roofed. However,
it should be noted that the concentration of tiles was
not nearly as high as that found in Rooms 3 and 6 to
the north. The phasing for Trench 41 ends with Phase
Four, as no post-abandonment cleaning or renovation,
generally associated with Phase Five and Phase Six, was noted by excavators.
Trench 41 did not ultimately reveal the southern boundary of the Southeast Building, as had been hoped.
Nevertheless, it produced additional, if enigmatic, evidence for the development of the building and the nature
of the activities taking place in it. The limited dimensions of the brick-and-millstone pavement may be indication
that the area was used as a workspace, or served some function for which a surface more durable than beaten-
earth floor was necessary. The hopper-rubber millstone pieces—which are undamaged and comprise part of
the surface—is noteworthy because they could not be used in this context for their primary intended function:
milling grain. Certainly hopper-rubber millstones continued to be used well into the first century BCE,
particularly in Greek settlements, but it seems unlikely that the use of perfectly serviceable hopper rubbers as
paving stones is unrelated to the contemporaneous advent of the rotary Morgantina-type millstone in the late
fourth and early third centuries BCE30
. At the moment, we cannot say whether this decision was a product of
the social atmosphere of Morgantina at the time or a reflection of advances in milling technology with the
introduction of rotary mills31
. Future excavations will aim to bring together the portions of the building exposed
29
Inv. 15-37. AR, octobol, Ø 20.05mm, 5.51g, 270o. Obv. Head of Athena l., behind cornucopia / Rev. Pegasos flying l., ΙΕΡΩΝΟΣ.
Syracuse, ca. 276-269 BCE. SG 984, BMC 2.523. 30
WILLIAMS-THORPE 1988: 254; WEFERS 2009; SANTI et al. 2012. 31
CURTIS 2008: 373-376; WHITE 1963; SANTI et al. 2015.
Fig. 31. Inv. 15-301. Siculo-Punic coin from deposit below brick-and-millstone pavement in Trench 41. Fig. 32. Inv. 15-37. Silver octobol of Hieron II.
A. Walthall - R. Souza - J. Benton - E. Wueste - A. Tharler ● Preliminary Report on the 2015 Field Season of the American Excavations at Morgantina:
Contrada Agnese Project (CAP)
21
www.fastionline.org/docs/FOLDER-it-2018-408.pdf
in Trench 41 with those revealed by the CAP excavations of 2014 (Trench 38) as well as the excavations of
H.L. Allen from the 1970s.
Conclusion
The 2015 CAP excavations shed light on both the nature of activity within the Southeast Building and the
complexity of its occupation history. With at least nine rooms now identified, we are better informed about the
layout of the building, which now appears to have undergone several phases of remodeling. The installation of
features related to food preparation (e.g. the oven in Room 9) and, possibly, to agricultural and industrial
activity in the latest occupation phase provides vivid testimony of the transformations taking place throughout
Morgantina in the last decades of the third century and first decades of the second century BCE. The large
number of pithoi and Greco-Italic amphoras found in both primary and secondary contexts serves to strengthen
further the idea that significant quantities of foodstuffs were stored and consumed within the building. Here, we
can point to the paleobotanical remains of cereals, both wheat and barley, legumes, grapes, and olives,
recovered and identified during the 2015 season. Uncertainty remains as to the principal function of the
Southeast Building, but these recent excavations have produced evidence for features commonly associated
with domestic architecture at Morgantina. Whether or not we are dealing with a Hellenistic house will be a
question answered by future excavations.
We are also now in a position to define more closely the building’s chronology, having recovered datable
material both from within the construction trenches in Room 3 and below the extensive tile falls encountered in
several rooms. While future excavations will undoubtedly produce additional dating evidence, we can
tentatively place the initial construction of the building to the middle decades of the third century BCE (ca.
260/250 BCE) and its principal abandonment (marked by the widespread collapse of roof tiles) to the final
decade of the third century BCE or, perhaps, the early years of the second century (ca. 210–190 BCE). As
such, the construction of the Southeast Building occurred at a time characterized by dramatic population growth
and new monumental construction across the entire urban center at Morgantina32
.
Alex Walthall
University of Texas at Austin E-mail: [email protected]
Randall Souza
Seattle University E-mail: [email protected]
Jared Benton
Old Dominion University E-mail: [email protected]
Elizabeth Wueste
Oberlin College
E-mail: [email protected]
Andrew Tharler
Bryn Mawr College E-mail: [email protected]
32
Regarding the “third-century boom” at Morgantina, see Shelley Stone’s narrative in MS VI (12-13); for discussion of the
archaeological evidence for expansion of residential areas in the city at the time, see BELL (2008); ALLEN (1973: 362-366).
A. Walthall - R. Souza - J. Benton - E. Wueste - A. Tharler ● Preliminary Report on the 2015 Field Season of the American Excavations at Morgantina:
Contrada Agnese Project (CAP)
22
www.fastionline.org/docs/FOLDER-it-2018-408.pdf
Abbreviations
HN Italy RUTTER, K., A. BURNETT. 2001. Historia Numorum: Italy. London: The British
Museum Press.
MS I BELL, III, M. 1981. Morgantina Studies, vol. I, The Terracottas. Princeton: Princeton
University Press.
MS II BUTTREY, T.V., ERIM K., GROVES T., HOLLOWAY R.R., 1989. Morgantina
Studies, vol. II, The Coins. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
MS VI STONE, S.C. 2015. Morgantina Studies, vol. VI, The Hellenistic and Roman Fine
Wares. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
RRC CRAWFORD M.H. 1974. Roman Republican coinage. London: Cambridge University
Press.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
ALLEN H., 1974. “Excavations at Morgantina (Serra Orlando), 1970-72: Preliminary Report XI”, in AJA 78: 361–
383.
BELL M., 2008. “Hiera oikopeda”, in C.A. DI STEFANO (ed.), Demetra, la divinità, i santuari, il culto, la leggenda.
Atti del congresso internazionale (Enna, 1–4 luglio 2004), Pisa: 155-159.
BENTON J., GORHAM R., HUEMOELLER J.F., LIEBERMAN L.A., MASSEY D., SMALLING A., SOUZA R., TRUETZEL A.,
WALTHALL D.A., 2015. “Recenti scavi a Morgantina: il progetto Contrada Agnese (2013-2014),” in G.
BRUNO (ed.), La geoarcheologia come chiave di lettura per uno sviluppo sostenibile del territorio sala
congressi del museo archeologico di Aidone (EN), 04 - 05 luglio 2014, SIGEA 2: 19-24.
CECCHERINI S.S.T., 2014, La monetazione di Reggio magnogreca dal IV sec. a.C. alla chiusura della zecca,
Rome.
CURTIS R.I., 2008. “Food Processing and Preparation”, in J.P. OLESON (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of
Engineering and Technology in the Classical World, Oxford: 369-392.
FREY-KUPPER S., 2013. ie Anti en Fundm nzen Vom onte Iato: 1971 - 1990; Ein Beitrag Zur Geldgeschichte
Westsiziliens, Lausanne.
LUCORE S.K., 2009. “Archimedes, the North Baths at Morgantina, and Early Developments in Vaulted
Construction,” in C. KOSSO, A. SCOTT (eds.), The Nature and Function of Water, Baths, and Bathing and
Hygiene from Antiquity through the Renaissance, Leiden: 43-59.
LUCORE S.K., 2013. “Bathing in Hieronian Sicily”, in S.K. LUCORE, M. TRÜMPER (eds.), Greek Baths and Bathing
Culture. New Discoveries and Approaches (BABESCH Suppl. 23), Leuven: 151-179.
PERROTTA G. 2008. “L’insediamento ellenistico-romano”, in C. BONANO (ed.), Apollonia: Indagini archeologiche
sul Monte di San Fratello, 2003–2005, Rome: 24-34.
SANTI P., RENZULLI A., BELL M. III. 2015, “The Volcanic Millstones from the Archaeological Site of Morgantina
(Sicily): Provenance and Evolution of the Milling Techniques in the Mediterranean Area”, Archaeometry
57: 803-821.
SANTI P., RENZULLI A., GULLO R., 2012, “Archaeometric study of the hopper-rubber and rotary Morgantina-type
volcanic millstones of the Greek and Roman periods found in the Aeolian archipelago (southern Italy).”
European Journal of Mineralogy; 25 (1): 39-52.
SJÖQVIST E., 1960, “Morgantina: Hellenistic Medicine Bottles”, AJA 64: 78-83.
TABORELLI L., MARENGO S.M., 2017, “Medicine Bottles and Ointment Jars from Morgantina”, in Archeologia
Classica 68: 27-51.
TSAKIRGIS B., 1984, “The domestic architecture of Morgantina in the Hellenistic and Roman periods”
(Unpublished dissertation: Princeton University).
WALTHALL D.A., SOUZ33A R., BENTON J., HUEMOELLER J.F., 2014, “Preliminary Report on the 2013 Field Season
of the American Excavations at Morgantina: Contrada Agnese Project (CAP)”, FOLD&R 322: 1-14.
WALTHALL D.A., SOUZA R., BENTON J., 2016, “Preliminary Report on the 2014 Field Season of the American
Excavations at Morgantina: Contrada Agnese Project (CAP)”, FOLD&R 364: 1-23.
A. Walthall - R. Souza - J. Benton - E. Wueste - A. Tharler ● Preliminary Report on the 2015 Field Season of the American Excavations at Morgantina:
Contrada Agnese Project (CAP)
23
www.fastionline.org/docs/FOLDER-it-2018-408.pdf
WEFERS, S., 2009, “Still using your saddle quern? A compilation of the oldest known rotary querns in western
Europe,” in D. WILLIAMS, E. PEACOCK (eds.), Bread for the people : the archaeology of mills and milling :
proceedings of a colloquium held in the British School at Rome, 4th-7th November 2009, Archaeopress,
Oxford: 67-76.
WHITE D., 1963, “A Survey of Millstones from Morgantina”, AJA 67:199–206.
WILLIAMS-THORPE, O. 1988, “The Provenancing and Archaeology of Roman Millstones from the
Mediterranean Area”, Journal of Archaeological Sciences 15.3: 253-305.